STATE v. TERRY

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

8988

Attorney(S)

Mr. Solicitor Cobb, for appellant, submits: The statute is general and definite in its terms. The statute is within the power of the State legislature: 19 Cyc. 1008, 1010. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dominick, also for appellant, submits: The statute is constitutional under article I. sec. 5, of the Constitution: 211 U.S. 31; 53 L.Ed. 75; 134 Fed. 282, distinguished. It is not in violation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. It applies to all game caught either within, or without the State: 134 Fed. 282; 24 Stats. 385; Crim. Code, sec. 755; 92 U.S. 214; 23 L.Ed. 563; U.S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 3182 (the Lacey Act); special legislation, art. III, sec. 34; 76 S.C. 21; 30 S.C. 360. Messrs. Barron, McKay, Frierson Moffatt, for respondent, submit: The title limits the statute to the protection of fish in the State of South Carolina, and this applies to the proviso: Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes (ed. of 1888), pp. 254-255, sec. 184 and 185, 186; 42 Am. St. Rep. 129, 139, 143, 144; 24 Or. 370; 211 U.S. 31; 53 L.Ed. 75. Unconstitutional as special legislation: art. III, sec. 34; 51 S.C. 51; 62 S.C. 247; 66 S.C. 219, 222; 59 S.C. 110. Conflict with art. I, sec. 5: 75 S.C. 62, 68. Conflict with commerce clause of the Federal Constitution: 211 U.S. 31; 53 L.Ed. 75; 134 Fed. 282; 164 N.Y. 100.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

STATE v. TERRY.

January 1, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE GAGE.

The argument has covered a wide range, but of ground upon which we need not go.

The primary and controlling issue is the meaning of our statute.

The statute is set out as section 755 of the Criminal Code of Laws; and the 5th proviso of the section is the exact provision which the defendant is charged to have violated.

The Circuit Judge has expressed our view of the statute in these words: "It is plain to my mind that the object of the statute was to protect the fish in the waters of our own State and not those from the waters of another State. That clearly is the object of the statute and its scope is not to be extended, unless the intent is clear and evident."

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order below be affirmed, and it is so directed.

STATE v. TERRY.

Comments